Abstract
Consanguinity promotes homozygosity of recessive susceptibility gene variants and can be used to investigate a recessive component in diseases whose inheritance is uncertain. The objective of this study was to assess the association between consanguinity and preterm birth (PTB), stratified by gestational age and clinical presentation (spontaneous vs. medically indicated). Data were collected on 39,745 singleton livebirths without major birth defects, admitted to 19 hospitals in Lebanon, from September 2003 to December 2007. Deliveries before completed 33 weeks’ gestation and deliveries at 33–36 weeks’ gestation were compared, with respect to cousin marriage, with those after completed 36 weeks’ gestation by using multinomial multiple logistic regression. Overall, infants of consanguineous parents had a statistically significant 1.6-fold net increased risk of being born at less than 33 weeks’ gestation compared with infants of unrelated parents. This association was statistically significant only with spontaneous PTB. There was no increased risk of being born at 33–36 weeks’ gestation associated with consanguinity for both clinical presentations of PTB. Our findings support a genetic contribution to early onset PTB and suggest that early PTB should be targeted in future genetic studies rather than the classic lumping of all births less than 37 weeks’ gestation.
Keywords: consanguinity, developing countries, genetics, premature birth
With approximately 13 million annual births before 37 weeks’ gestation worldwide, preterm birth (PTB) is a major obstetric and neonatal challenge (1). It remains the leading cause of neonatal mortality globally, accounting for 27% of all direct causes of deaths (2). Millennium Development Goal 4 aims at reducing the under-5 child mortality by two thirds by 2015. With 38% of these deaths occurring in the neonatal period, achieving this goal will not be feasible unless significant action is taken for the prevention of PTB globally (2). Despite extensive research, causes of PTB remain an unresolved issue in obstetric care (3). Recent evidence points to a multifactorial etiology of PTB, with interplay of environmental and genetic factors. Although some environmental risk factors have long been recognized, the genetics of PTB is lately receiving worldwide attention from the scientific community (4, 5).
Consanguinity, the marriage between relatives, is often used to investigate a recessive component in diseases, because it favors the reemergence of deleterious alleles that run in families (6). Exploring the association of consanguineous marriages with PTB can give important insights as to the role of a genetic component in PTB. Previous studies have extensively investigated an association between consanguinity and lower birth weight (7–17), but few have attempted to explore its association with PTB (10, 12–14, 18–20). The majority of these studies have methodological limitations, including selection bias (12, 14), failure to control for potential confounding factors (10, 12–14), and small sample size (10, 12, 13, 19).
In Lebanon, marriage of relatives is a common cultural practice and provides the opportunity to study the effect of consanguinity on PTB. In this paper, and using a large data set from a perinatal neonatal network in Lebanon, we investigate the association between consanguinity and PTB, stratified by different levels of gestational age and clinical presentation, whether spontaneous or medically indicated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
This study was a cross-sectional analysis on newborns admitted as part of the National Collaborative Perinatal Neonatal Network to 19 hospitals in Lebanon from September 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007. Trained personnel collect data on a daily basis pertaining to all deliveries at participating centers. Data sources include abstraction from medical charts and direct interviews with mothers. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the American University of Beirut.
Study variables
Data on parental consanguinity were collected through direct interviews with mothers in the immediate postpartum period before hospital discharge. Parental consanguinity was categorized into unrelated, first cousins, and second cousins. Gestational age was established on the basis of an early first trimester ultrasound in 91% of the cases and the last menstrual period in the remaining cases. It was categorized into 3 levels: deliveries before completed 33 weeks’ gestation (early PTBs), deliveries at 33–36 weeks’ gestation (late PTBs), and deliveries after completed 36 weeks’ gestation (reference category: term births). PTBs were classified as spontaneous if they were preceded by spontaneous labor or rupture of membranes.
The sociodemographic characteristics considered as potential confounders were maternal and paternal age, maternal education, working status during pregnancy, and household crowding index. Maternal characteristics included parity, prepregnancy body mass index, maternal height, weekly weight gain rate, and cigarette and narghile smoking. Information on pregnancy complications was available and included bleeding, hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes, amniotic fluid abnormalities, and utilization of assisted reproductive techniques. The gender of the newborns was also considered as a potential neonatal confounder.
Study population
During the study period, a total of 54,248 liveborn infants were delivered at participating hospitals. Newborns were excluded if they were multiple gestations (n = 2,409), had major birth defects (n = 1,195), or had missing data on consanguinity (n = 3,422), gestational age (n = 1,373), type of gestation (single or multiple) (n = 602), birth defects (n = 3,733), or clinical presentation of the delivery (n = 3,488). The final sample consisted of a total of 39,745 singleton livebirths. Among this sample, there were only 819 women (2.1%) who delivered more than once during the study period giving birth to 1,648 babies. Exclusion of these cases or adjustment for them in the analysis did not impact the final results and, thus, they were included in the final sample.
Analysis
Analyses were done by using SPSS, version 15 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois), and STATA, version 10.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas), software. Cross-tabulation between consanguinity and the different covariates was performed in order to define the characteristics of the studied population. The association between PTB and consanguinity and the other covariates was assessed by using the χ2 test. Crude odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by using bivariate multinomial regression analysis with the baseline category being term births. The independent effect of consanguinity on the risk of early and late PTB was assessed by performing multinomial multiple logistic regression analysis adjusting for within-hospital clustering of the data by using a robust estimator for the standard errors that allows correlation between responses within hospitals. The regression analysis included all variables that proved to be significantly associated with the outcome at the bivariate level (2-tailed P < 0.2). There was a concern that pregnancy complications might be intermediate outcomes of pregnancy; therefore, these covariates were not included in the final regression models. However, for further reassurance, regression analysis including these variables was carried out, and there was no noticeable change in the regression coefficients (not shown).
Because it is often argued that spontaneous and medically indicated PTBs have different risk factors (21, 22), the analyses were stratified by clinical presentation of PTB. In both cases, early and late PTBs were compared with the total term births (spontaneous and indicated).
RESULTS
Table 1 describes the characteristics of the study population by degree of consanguinity. Women in consanguineous unions were mainly Muslims, of lower socioeconomic status, had higher prepregnancy body mass index and lower pregnancy weight gain, and also smoked more than mothers in unrelated unions.
Table 1.
Parental Consanguinity |
|||||||
Characteristics | Unrelated |
First Cousins |
Second Cousins |
P Valuea | |||
No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | ||
Religion | |||||||
Muslim | 24,273 | 75.8 | 3,431 | 96.8 | 1,251 | 96.2 | |
Christian | 7,756 | 24.2 | 115 | 3.2 | 50 | 3.8 | <0.001 |
Maternal age, years | |||||||
<20 | 1,242 | 3.6 | 208 | 5.5 | 88 | 6.3 | |
20–34 | 26,944 | 78.4 | 2,954 | 77.9 | 1,095 | 78.7 | |
≥35 | 6,173 | 18.0 | 631 | 16.6 | 208 | 15.0 | <0.001 |
Paternal age, years | |||||||
<25 | 924 | 2.8 | 182 | 4.9 | 62 | 4.6 | |
25–44 | 30,527 | 91.4 | 3,321 | 89.5 | 1,222 | 89.8 | |
≥45 | 1,931 | 5.8 | 209 | 5.6 | 77 | 5.7 | <0.001 |
Maternal education | |||||||
Illiterate to elementary | 4,763 | 14.2 | 940 | 25.0 | 310 | 22.4 | |
Intermediate/secondary | 15,034 | 44.7 | 2,056 | 54.7 | 722 | 52.3 | |
Technical/university | 13,808 | 41.1 | 760 | 20.2 | 349 | 25.3 | <0.001 |
Maternal working status | |||||||
Housewife | 25,257 | 74.8 | 3,391 | 90.5 | 1,221 | 88.6 | |
Working | 8,505 | 25.2 | 354 | 9.5 | 157 | 11.4 | <0.001 |
Crowding index | |||||||
<1 | 19,598 | 59.8 | 1,498 | 40.9 | 625 | 46.5 | |
1–2 | 12,715 | 38.8 | 2,035 | 55.6 | 674 | 50.2 | |
≥3 | 478 | 1.5 | 128 | 3.5 | 44 | 3.3 | <0.001 |
Parity, no. | |||||||
0 | 12,339 | 36.0 | 1,037 | 27.4 | 399 | 28.6 | |
1–2 | 16,695 | 48.7 | 1,668 | 44.0 | 658 | 47.2 | |
≥3 | 5,241 | 15.3 | 1,084 | 28.6 | 337 | 24.2 | <0.001 |
Prepregnancy body mass index | |||||||
Underweight | 1,516 | 5.0 | 106 | 3.4 | 43 | 3.6 | |
Normal | 19,999 | 66.0 | 1,895 | 61.0 | 727 | 61.1 | |
Overweight | 6,910 | 22.8 | 870 | 28.0 | 324 | 27.2 | |
Obese | 1,885 | 6.2 | 235 | 7.6 | 95 | 8.0 | <0.001 |
Maternal height, cm | |||||||
<155 | 2,105 | 6.8 | 264 | 8.3 | 103 | 8.3 | |
155–159 | 5,537 | 17.9 | 604 | 18.9 | 223 | 18.1 | |
≥160 | 23,211 | 75.2 | 2,322 | 72.8 | 908 | 73.6 | 0.003 |
Weight gain rate, kg/week | |||||||
<0.27 | 11,101 | 33.7 | 1,441 | 40.9 | 498 | 38.4 | |
0.27–0.51 | 19,110 | 58.1 | 1,836 | 52.1 | 702 | 54.2 | |
≥0.52 | 2,693 | 8.2 | 246 | 7.0 | 96 | 7.4 | <0.001 |
Cigarette smoking | |||||||
No | 29,958 | 87.9 | 3,343 | 89.0 | 1,205 | 87.1 | |
Before pregnancy | 1,308 | 3.8 | 90 | 2.4 | 35 | 2.5 | |
During pregnancy | 2,809 | 8.2 | 322 | 8.6 | 143 | 10.3 | <0.001 |
Narghile smoking | |||||||
No | 30,212 | 88.7 | 3,370 | 89.7 | 1,225 | 88.6 | |
Before pregnancy | 1,984 | 5.8 | 167 | 4.4 | 74 | 5.4 | |
During pregnancy | 1,879 | 5.5 | 218 | 5.8 | 84 | 6.1 | 0.010 |
Assisted reproductive techniques | 329 | 1.0 | 35 | 1.0 | 8 | 0.6 | 0.375 |
Bleeding | 2,032 | 5.9 | 220 | 5.9 | 85 | 6.2 | 0.918 |
Hypertensive disorders | 503 | 1.5 | 58 | 1.5 | 24 | 1.7 | 0.680 |
Gestational diabetes | 418 | 1.2 | 27 | 0.7 | 13 | 0.9 | 0.018 |
Amniotic fluid abnormalities | 1,360 | 3.9 | 275 | 7.2 | 99 | 7.1 | <0.001 |
Female sex | 16,583 | 48.7 | 1,797 | 48.3 | 673 | 49.3 | 0.838 |
Two tailed P value of the chi-square test.
Bivariate analysis showed that the proportion of first and second cousins was 15.4% and 4.6%, respectively, among early PTB compared with 9.6% and 3.5%, respectively, among term births, with the relationship being statistically significant only with first-cousin marriage (odds ratio = 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3, 2.4) (Table 2). Similar trends were observed when the analysis was stratified by spontaneous versus medically indicated PTB. No association was observed between consanguinity and any type of late PTB (Table 2).
Table 2.
Parental Consanguinity | Early PTB |
Late PTB |
Terma |
Early PTB/Terma |
Late PTB/Terma |
|||||
No. | %b | No. | %b | No. | %b | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
Total PTB | ||||||||||
Not related | 224 | 80.0 | 1,544 | 87.9 | 32,774 | 86.9 | 1.0 | Referent | 1.0 | Referent |
First cousins | 43 | 15.4 | 155 | 8.8 | 3,608 | 9.6 | 1.7 | 1.3, 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.8, 1.1 |
Second cousins | 13 | 4.6 | 58 | 3.3 | 1,326 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.8, 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.7, 1.2 |
Spontaneous PTB | ||||||||||
Not related | 180 | 80.0 | 1,247 | 88.1 | 32,774 | 86.9 | 1.0 | Referent | 1.0 | Referent |
First cousins | 34 | 15.1 | 123 | 8.7 | 3,608 | 9.6 | 1.7 | 1.2, 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.7, 1.1 |
Second cousins | 11 | 4.9 | 46 | 3.2 | 1,326 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 0.8, 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.7, 1.2 |
Indicated PTB | ||||||||||
Not related | 44 | 80.0 | 297 | 87.1 | 32,774 | 86.9 | 1.0 | Referent | 1.0 | Referent |
First cousins | 9 | 16.4 | 32 | 9.4 | 3,608 | 9.6 | 1.9 | 0.9, 3.8 | 1.0 | 0.7, 1.4 |
Second cousins | 2 | 3.6 | 12 | 3.5 | 1,326 | 3.5 | 1.1 | 0.3, 4.6 | 1.0 | 0.6, 1.8 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PTB, preterm birth.
All births >36 weeks, spontaneous and indicated.
Column percentage.
In view of the small sample size in the subcategories of gestational age and consanguinity and because comparable measures of association for first and second cousins with PTB were observed in the bivariate analysis, first and second cousins were combined into one category in the multiple logistic regression. After controlling for the other risk factors and adjusting for within-hospital clustering, we found that cousin marriage remained significantly associated with spontaneous early PTB, with infants of these marriages having a 1.6-fold increased risk of being born spontaneously at less than 33 weeks’ gestation compared with infants of unrelated parents (95% CI: 1.1, 2.4). Consanguinity was associated with a similar increase in risk of medically indicated early PTB, but this did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.7, 3.9). Even after adjustment for potential confounders, there was no association between consanguinity and late PTB, whether spontaneous or medically indicated (Table 3).
Table 3.
Parental Consanguinity | Early PTB |
Late PTB |
||
OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
Total PTBb | ||||
Not related | 1.0 | Referent | 1.0 | Referent |
First or second cousins | 1.6 | 1.1, 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.8, 1.2 |
Spontaneous PTBb | ||||
Not related | 1.0 | Referent | 1.0 | Referent |
First or second cousins | 1.6 | 1.1, 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.8, 1.2 |
Indicated PTBc | ||||
Not related | 1.0 | Referent | 1.0 | Referent |
First or second cousins | 1.6 | 0.7, 3.9 | 1.0 | 0.7, 1.6 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PTB, preterm birth.
Baseline category: all births >36 weeks.
Adjusted for maternal age, paternal age, maternal education, working status, crowding index, prepregnancy body mass index, weekly weight gain, cigarette and narghile smoking before and during pregnancy, parity, assisted reproductive techniques, and newborn's sex. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on hospital of delivery.
Adjusted for the same variables as in “all PTB” excluding working status during pregnancy, narghile smoking, and newborn's sex. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on hospital of delivery.
As a check on whether consanguinity was an important risk factor for PTB, the final regression model performed for the total PTB was compared with a similar model containing all the covariates without consanguinity. Based on the likelihood ratio test, the contribution of consanguinity in predicting early PTB was statistically significant.
DISCUSSION
This work is the first investigation on the independent effect of consanguinity on the risk of PTB stratified by different levels of prematurity and clinical presentation. It showed that consanguinity is a risk factor for early but not late PTB, with the association being statistically significant only with spontaneous early PTBs. Overall, infants of consanguineous parents had 1.6-fold increased risk of being born at less than 33 weeks’ gestation compared with infants of unrelated parents (95% CI: 1.1, 2.4).
Previous studies on the effect of parental consanguinity on PTB have defined it at less than 37 weeks’ gestation and appear to be inconclusive. Two of the most recent investigations have reported a significant increase in the risk of PTB (18, 19). These are the few studies that controlled for potential confounders by using regression analysis. In the small case-control study of Saudi women, the reported odds ratio for the association between consanguinity and PTB was 3.0 (19), while the odds ratio of 1.8 reported in Jordan is more comparable to the findings of our study (18). A cross-sectional study conducted at one hospital in Lebanon also reported comparable odds ratios of 1.6 and 1.3 for PTB with first and second cousin marriage, respectively (12). Although this study and the remaining body of literature have failed to detect a significant association between consanguinity and PTB (10, 12–14), it remains unclear whether this was due to several methodological weaknesses, such as lack of control of covariates, or, in light of our results, whether this was due to the lumping of the early and late PTB in one outcome category.
A familial component to PTB has been recognized in the literature. Twin and family studies suggest that genetic effects explain, at least partially, the observed familiality (20, 23, 24). This pattern is demonstrated through strong patterns of recurrence of PTB. Studies on the heritability of gestational age among spontaneous deliveries at term have suggested that both maternal and fetal genes contribute to the normal variability in PTB (25, 26). However, recent studies in northern European populations restricted to PTB have shown that most heritable effects in PTB exert their effects through the mother, while a substantial role of the fetal genotype—underlying a paternal effect—is less obvious (27–29). Our results suggest that, although maternal genes might have a more important effect in determining PTB, genes inherited from the father should not be disregarded and that a classic polygenic mode of inheritance should not be overlooked in future genetic studies. The effect of paternal genes on PTB should be investigated with further scrutiny. As one possibility, there may be differences between populations in the role of maternal versus fetal genes.
One of the advantages of this study was the stratification by clinical presentation of PTB. Although much evidence has been building to split these groups in genetic epidemiologic studies (1), many argue that these 2 types share a common mechanism and should be aggregated (1). In our study, the odds ratio for the association between consanguinity and early PTB was similar for spontaneous and medically indicated PTB, but the association was statistically significant only with the former. Consanguinity was not a risk factor for any type of late PTB. It is worth noting that the sample of medically indicated PTB in our study was small, and these findings ought to be reproduced in larger investigations.
Despite the availability of information on many sociodemographic, behavioral, and medical confounders in the National Collaborative Perinatal Neonatal Network database, the possibility of bias due to residual confounding, whether from measurement errors in available covariates or from unmeasured confounding, cannot be fully eliminated. For example, our use of weekly weight gain by dividing the total pregnancy weight gain by the gestational age is not optimal because weight gain does not increase linearly with gestational age, with much of the gain occurring in the third trimester. A better measurement of this confounder could not be obtained with the available data. Information was also not available on intrauterine infections and bacterial vaginosis. However, the effect of residual confounding on exposure–outcome associations is complex, and it is not clear in which direction the potential bias would point (30). It is also unlikely that strong confounders might have been missed because these would usually be identified in the literature (31). Another limitation was that some cases were excluded for missing data on the main exposure, consanguinity. However, it is likely that this effect was only marginal, as there is no evidence that the missing information followed any specific pattern related to the exposure or outcome.
This multicenter study analyzed data on all deliveries at 19 major hospitals in Lebanon. The rate of PTB (<37 weeks’ gestation) in the original total sample (n = 54,248) was 8.2%, which is comparable to the reported global rate of 9.6% (32) and to the rate of 9.0% in Lebanon available from a national survey (33). The total sample represents around 17% of the total births in Lebanon for the specified period of time (http://www.cas.gov.lb). With over 94% of deliveries in Lebanon occurring in hospitals (34), we believe that our findings have a relatively good degree of generalizability. They indicate that consanguinity increases the risk of early and not late PTB. With consanguinity suggesting the involvement of a recessive mode of inheritance, our findings present a new insight to the mechanisms leading to PTB and suggest that future genetic studies should target specifically early PTB when investigating genetic origins of PTB.
Acknowledgments
Author affiliations: Department of Pediatrics, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon (Ghina Mumtaz, Akaber El Khamra, Nathalie Al-Choueiri, Khalid A. Yunis); Infectious Disease Epidemiology Group, Weill Cornell Medical College—Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation—Education City, Doha, Qatar (Ghina Mumtaz, Ziyad Mahfoud); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon (Anwar H. Nassar, Abdallah Adra); Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (Ziyad Mahfoud); Department of Pediatrics, State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate University Hospital, Syracuse, New York (Akaber El Khamra); Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa (Jeffrey C. Murray); and School of Medicine, Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon (Pierre Zalloua).
This work was supported by funds from the World Health Organization; the March of Dimes Foundation; the United Nations Children's Fund; the Lebanese National Council for Scientific Research; the US National Institutes of Health (grants HD057192 and HD052953); and the Medical Practice Plan, the University Research Board, and the Pediatrics Chairman's fund at the American University of Beirut.
The authors thank the executive committee members of the National Collaborative Perinatal Neonatal Network (NCPNN): Dr. Alya Al Aaraj, Dr. Imad Melki, Dr. Mohammad Itani, Dr. Mona Alameh, and Dr. Yolla Nassif. They also would like to thank the 19 NCPNN member hospitals that provided data for this work. These are as follows (in alphabetical order): Ain Wa Zain Hospital, Al Haykal Hospital, Al Mounla Hospital, the American University Hospital, Bahman Hospital, El Yusif Hospital, Hotel Dieu de France Hospital, Jabal Amel Hospital, Jbeili Hospital, Kobeyat Hospital, Makassed General Hospital, Nabatiyyi Hospital, Najjar Hospital, Rahhal Hospital, Rassoul al Aazam Hospital, Rayak Hospital, Rizk Hospital, Sahel General Hospital, and Saint-Georges Hospital.
Conflict of interest: none declared.
Glossary
Abbreviations
- CI
confidence interval
- PTB
preterm birth
References
- 1.Pennell CE, Jacobsson B, Williams SM, et al. Genetic epidemiologic studies of preterm birth: guidelines for research. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(2):107–118. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.03.109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J. 4 million neonatal deaths: When? Where? Why? Lancet. 2005;365(9462):891–900. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Monaghan SC, Little RE, Hulchiy O, et al. Risk factors for spontaneous preterm birth in two urban areas of Ukraine. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2001;15(2):123–130. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3016.2001.00327.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Biggio J, Christiaens I, Katz M, et al. A call for an international consortium on the genetics of preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(2):95–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Merialdi M, Murray JC. The changing face of preterm birth. Pediatrics. 2007;120(5):1133–1134. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-2683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Khlat M, Khoury M. Inbreeding and diseases: demographic, genetic, and epidemiologic perspectives. Epidemiol Rev. 1991;13(1):28–41. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mumtaz G, Tamim H, Kanaan M, et al. Effect of consanguinity on birth weight for gestational age in a developing country. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(7):742–752. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwk108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.al-Abdulkareem AA Ballal SG. Consanguineous marriage in an urban area of Saudi Arabia: rates and adverse health effects on the offspring. J Community Health. 1998;23(1):75–83. doi: 10.1023/a:1018727005707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Jaber L, Merlob P, Gabriel R, et al. Effects of consanguineous marriage on reproductive outcome in an Arab community in Israel. J Med Genet. 1997;34(12):1000–1002. doi: 10.1136/jmg.34.12.1000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Başaran N, Artan S, Yazicioglu S, et al. Effects of consanguinity on anthropometric measurements of newborn infants. Clin Genet. 1994;45(4):208–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.1994.tb04025.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kulkarni ML, Kurian M. Consanguinity and its effect on fetal growth and development: a south Indian study. J Med Genet. 1990;27(6):348–352. doi: 10.1136/jmg.27.6.348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Khlat M. Inbreeding effects on fetal growth in Beirut, Lebanon. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1989;80(4):481–484. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330800407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Asha Bai PV, John TJ. The effect of consanguinity on the gestation period and anthropometric traits of the new-born in southern India. Trop Geogr Med. 1982;34(3):225–229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Rao PS, Inbaraj SG. Inbreeding effects on fetal growth and development. J Med Genet. 1980;17(1):27–33. doi: 10.1136/jmg.17.1.27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Honeyman MM, Bahl L, Marshall T, et al. Consanguinity and fetal growth in Pakistani Moslems. Arch Dis Child. 1987;62(3):231–235. doi: 10.1136/adc.62.3.231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Sibert JR, Jadhav M, Inbaraj SG. Fetal growth and parental consanguinity. Arch Dis Child. 1979;54(4):317–319. doi: 10.1136/adc.54.4.317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fried K, Davies AM. Some effects on the offspring of uncle-niece marriage in the Moroccan Jewish community in Jerusalem. Am J Hum Genet. 1974;26(1):65–72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Obeidat BR, Khader YS, Amarin ZO, et al. Consanguinity and adverse pregnancy outcomes: the north of Jordan experience. Matern Child Health J. 2010;14(2):283–289. doi: 10.1007/s10995-008-0426-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.al-Eissa YA. Ba‘Aqeel HS. Risk factors for spontaneous preterm birth in a Saudi population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1994;57(1):19–24. doi: 10.1016/0028-2243(94)90104-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Khoury MJ, Cohen BH. Genetic heterogeneity of prematurity and intrauterine growth retardation: clues from the Old Order Amish. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;157(2):400–410. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(87)80181-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Berkowitz GS, Blackmore-Prince C, Lapinski RH, et al. Risk factors for preterm birth subtypes. Epidemiology. 1998;9(3):279–285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Savitz DA, Dole N, Herring AH, et al. Should spontaneous and medically indicated preterm births be separated for studying aetiology? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2005;19(2):97–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2005.00637.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Clausson B, Lichtenstein P, Cnattingius S. Genetic influence on birthweight and gestational length determined by studies in offspring of twins. BJOG. 2000;107(3):375–381. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13234.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Treloar SA, Macones GA, Mitchell LE, et al. Genetic influences on premature parturition in an Australian twin sample. Twin Res. 2000;3(2):80–82. doi: 10.1375/136905200320565526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lunde A, Melve KK, Gjessing HK, et al. Genetic and environmental influences on birth weight, birth length, head circumference, and gestational age by use of population-based parent-offspring data. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(7):734–741. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwk107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lie RT, Wilcox AJ, Skjaerven R. Maternal and paternal influences on length of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(4):880–885. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000206797.52832.36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Svensson AC, Sandin S, Cnattingius S, et al. Maternal effects for preterm birth: a genetic epidemiologic study of 630,000 families. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(11):1365–1372. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Boyd HA, Poulsen G, Wohlfahrt J, et al. Maternal contributions to preterm delivery. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(11):1358–1364. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wilcox AJ, Skjaerven R, Lie RT. Familial patterns of preterm delivery: maternal and fetal contributions. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(4):474–479. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Fewell Z, Davey Smith G, Sterne JA. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(6):646–655. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Morabia A, Poppers Kaposi's sarcoma, and HIV infection: empirical example of a strong confounding effect? Prev Med. 1995;24(1):90–95. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1995.1014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Beck S, Wojdyla D, Say L, et al. The worldwide incidence of preterm birth: a systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(1):31–38. doi: 10.2471/BLT.08.062554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.National Perinatal Survey. Beirut, Lebanon: Lebanese Republic Ministry of Public Health, United Nations Children's Fund; 1999–2000. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Lebanon State of the Environment Report. Beirut, Lebanon: Lebanese Republic Ministry of Environment; 2001. [Google Scholar]